the 2009 annual report of the monitoring avian ... · the 2009 annual report of the monitoring...

The 2009 Annual Report of the Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship (MAPS) Program in Yosemite National Park

Rodney B. Siegel1, Peter Pyle

1, Danielle R. Kaschube

1, and Sarah Stock

2

1The Institute for Bird Populations

P.O. Box 1346

Point Reyes Station, CA 94956-1346

2Division of Resources Management and Science

Yosemite National Park

March 16, 2010

The MAPS Program in Yosemite National Park, 2009 - i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 3

Establishment and Operation of Stations ....................................................................... 3

Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 4

Computer Data Entry and Verification .......................................................................... 5

Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 5

Adult population index and productivity analyses.................................................. 6

Analyses of trends in adult population size and productivity ................................. 7

RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 8

2009 Indices of Adult Population Size and Post-fledging Productivity ....................... 8

Multi-year Trends in Adult Population Size and Productivity .................................... 9

DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 10

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... 11

LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 12

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. Summary of the 2009 operation of the five MAPS stations in Yosemite

National Park ................................................................................................... 14

Table 2. Capture summary for the five individual MAPS stations operated in

Yosemite National Park in 2009 .................................................................... 15

Table 3. Numbers of aged individual birds captured per 600 net-hours and

proportion of young in the catch at the five individual MAPS stations

operated in Yosemite National Park in 2009 ................................................ 19

Figure 1. Locations of ongoing Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

(MAPS) bird banding stations at Yosemite National Park ........................ 22

Figure 2. Population trends for 25 species and all species pooled at the five

currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National Park over the

17 Years 1993-2009 ........................................................................................ 23

Figure 3. Trend in productivity for 25 species and all species pooled at the five

currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National Park over the

17 Years 1993-2009 ......................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX 1. Breeding status classifications for all species banded or encountered

during the 20 years, 1990-2009, of the MAPS Program on the six stations ever operated

at Yosemite National Park ........................................................................................................ 29

The MAPS Program in Yosemite National Park, 2009 - 1

INTRODUCTION

National parks can fulfill vital roles for birds, both as refuges for species dependent on late

successional forest conditions, and as reference sites for assessing the effects of land use and land

cover changes on populations (Silsbee and Peterson 1991). Such changes may result from local

or regional activities such as land conversion and forest management, or from broader-scale

processes such as global climate change. Monitoring vital rates and population trends at

‘control’ sites in national parks can be especially important because parks are among the few

sites in the United States where population trends, due to large-scale regional and global change

patterns are relatively unconfounded by local changes in land-use practices (Simons et al. 1999).

Landbirds are excellent indicators of environmental change in terrestrial ecosystems, because of

their high body temperature, rapid metabolism, and high ecological position on most food webs.

Furthermore, their abundance and diversity in virtually all terrestrial habitats, diurnal nature,

discrete reproductive seasonality, and intermediate longevity facilitate the monitoring of their

population and demographic parameters. An added benefit is that landbird monitoring is often

particularly efficient, in the sense that many species can be monitored simultaneously with the

same survey protocol, and costs are relatively low. Finally, landbirds hold high and growing

public interest (Cordell et al. 1999; Cordell and Herbert 2002) and are perhaps the most visible

faunal component of park ecosystems.

Population-trend data on Neotropical migrant birds, while suggesting alarming declines in some

species, provide no information on primary demographic parameters (productivity and

survivorship). Without demographic information, population-trend data alone provide no means

for determining at what point(s) in the life cycles problems are occurring, or to what extent

population trends are driven by causal factors that affect birth rates, death rates, or both (DeSante

1995). The lack of such information for migratory birds in particular is an obstacle to effective

conservation actions, as it leaves unresolved whether critical problems that drive population

declines are occurring primarily on temperate breeding grounds, during migration, or on distant

tropical wintering grounds. Lack of data on productivity and survivorship thus impedes the

formulation of effective management and conservation strategies to reverse population declines

(DeSante 1992); for example, if low survival away from breeding grounds is a primary cause of

population decline, managing for improved breeding success in a national park likely will not

reverse the decline.

Environmental factors and management actions affect primary demographic parameters directly

and these effects can be observed over a short time period (Temple and Wiens 1989). Because of

the buffering effects of floater individuals and density-dependent responses of populations, there

may be substantial time lags between changes in primary parameters and resulting changes in

population size or density as measured by census or survey methods (DeSante and George 1994).

Thus, a population could be in trouble long before this becomes evident from population trend

data alone. Perhaps even more importantly, because of the vagility of many bird species, local

variation in secondary parameters (e.g., population size or density) may be masked by

recruitment from a wider region (George et al. 1992) or accentuated by lack of recruitment from

2 - The MAPS Program in Yosemite National Park, 2009

a wider area (DeSante 1990). Local abundance can sometimes be a poor indicator of

reproductive success, particularly in habitats that have been modified substantially by humans

(Bock and Jones 2004).

In 1989 The Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) established the Monitoring Avian Productivity

and Survivorship (MAPS) program, a cooperative effort among public agencies, private

organizations, and individual bird banders in North America. MAPS has since grown into a

continent-wide network of over 500 constant-effort mist-netting and banding stations that

provide long-term demographic data on landbirds (DeSante et al. 1995). The design of the

MAPS program was patterned after the very successful British Constant Effort Sites (CES)

Scheme that has been operated by the British Trust for Ornithology since 1981 (Peach et al.

1996). The MAPS program was endorsed in 1991 by both the Monitoring Working Group of

PIF and the USDI Bird Banding Laboratory, and subsequently has attracted participation from

numerous federal agencies, including the National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, US Fish

and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Department of the Army,

and Texas Army National Guard.

The MAPS Program is organized to fulfill three sets of goals and objectives: monitoring,

research, and management:

Monitoring goals. For over 100 target species, including Neotropical-wintering migrants,

temperate-wintering migrants, and permanent residents, MAPS provides: (a) annual indices

of adult population size and post-fledging productivity from data on the numbers and

proportions of young and adult birds captured; and (b) annual estimates of adult population

size, adult survival rates, proportions of residents, and recruitment into the adult population

from modified Cormack- Jolly-Seber analyses of mark-recapture data on adult birds.

Research goals. MAPS identifies and describes: (a) temporal and spatial patterns in these

demographic indices and estimates at a variety of spatial scales ranging from the local

landscape to the entire continent; and (b) relationships between these patterns and

ecological characteristics of the target species, population trends of the target species,

station-specific and landscape-level habitat characteristics, and spatially-explicit weather

variables.

Management goals. MAPS uses these patterns and relationships to: (a) identify thresholds

and trigger points to notify appropriate agencies and organizations of the need for further

research and/or management actions; (b) determine the proximate demographic cause(s) of

population change; (c) suggest management actions and conservation strategies to reverse

population declines and maintain stable or increasing populations; and (d) evaluate the

effectiveness of management actions and conservation strategies that are implemented.

The MAPS program was established in Yosemite National Park in 1990, and Yosemite now

hosts some of the longest-running MAPS stations in the country.


In this report we briefly summarize results of the MAPS program at five stations in Yosemite

National Park from 1993 (1998 at the Gin Flat East Meadow station) through 2009. Siegel et al.

(2007) present a complete report summarizing data and results through 2006, Siegel et al. (2009)

update data from the 2008 season, and additional data from the Hodgdon Meadow station from

1990-1992 are presented in previous reports (e.g., Pyle et al. 2006). Here we present indices of

adult population size and productivity for each station and for all stations combined through

2009. For selected target species and all species pooled, we present temporal trends in adult

population size and productivity. More in-depth analyses, particularly analyses assessing effects

of annual weather variation and climate change, will be conducted after the 2010 field season.

METHODS

Establishment and Operation of Stations

Five MAPS stations were re-established and operated in Yosemite National Park in 2009, at the

same locations they were operated in previous years (Fig 1). The five stations, located along an

elevation gradient from highest to lowest, were:

• White Wolf Meadow (WHWO), set in a wet montane meadow surrounded by mixed red

fir and lodgepole pine forest at 2,402 m elevation.

• Gin Flat East Meadow (GFEM), located in a wet montane meadow surrounded by mixed

red fir and lodgepole pine forest at 2,073 m elevation.

• Crane Flat Meadow (CRFL), located in a wet montane meadow with willow and aspen

thickets, surrounded by mixed conifer forest at 1,875 m elevation.

• Hodgdon Meadow (HODG), located in a wet montane meadow with willow and

dogwood thickets, surrounded by mixed conifer forest and a patch of California Black

Oak woodland at 1,408 m elevation.

• Big Meadow (BIME), located in riparian willows and mixed conifer forest (largely

consumed by a stand-replacing fire in 1990) in an open, dry meadow at 1,311 m

elevation.

The Hodgdon Meadow station was established and first operated according to the standardized

MAPS protocol in 1990, followed by White Wolf Meadow, Crane Flat, and Big Meadow in

1993, and Gin Flat East Meadow in 1998. See Table 1 for details of habitats and operation of

each station in 2009.

Through the efforts of three field biologist interns (Jessica Groetsch and Kenton Buck from IBP,

and Alan Monroy-Ojeda from the Park Flight program via Sequoia and Kings Canyon National

Parks), trained and supervised by IBP Biologist Jeff Moker and Yosemite Wildlife Biologist

Sarah Stock, these five MAPS banding stations were operated during 2009 in accordance with


the standardized banding protocols developed for the MAPS Program throughout North America

(DeSante et al. 2009).

Ten net sites (14 sites at the Hodgdon Meadow station) were re-established at each of the stations

in 2009, at the exact same locations where they were established and operated in each of the

preceding years. One 12-m-long, 30-mm-mesh, nylon mist net was erected at each of the ten net

sites at four of the stations on each day of operation. At Hodgdon Meadow, seven of the 14 net

sites were operated on one day with the remaining seven net sites operated on a second day.

Each of the stations was operated for six morning hours per day (beginning at about local

sunrise) during one day (two days for Hodgdon Meadow) in each of eight consecutive 10-day

periods between May 21 and August 8 or, for the two higher-elevation stations (White Wolf

Meadow and Gin Flat East Meadow), for one day in each of seven periods between May 31 and

August 8 (see Table 1). The operation of all stations occurred on schedule in 2009 during each

of the ten-day periods.

Data Collection

With few exceptions, all birds captured at MAPS stations were identified to species, age, and

sex. If unbanded, the birds were banded with USGS/BRD numbered aluminum bands. Birds

were released immediately upon capture and before being banded or processed if situations arose

where bird safety was compromised. Such situations could involve exceptionally large numbers

of birds being captured at once, or the sudden onset of adverse weather conditions such as high

winds or rainfall. The following data were collected from all birds captured, including

recaptures:

• capture code (newly banded, recaptured, band changed, unbanded);

• band number

• species

• age and how aged

• sex (if possible) and how sexed (if applicable)

• extent of skull pneumaticization

• breeding condition of adults (i.e., extent of cloacal protuberance or brood patch)

• extent of juvenal plumage in young birds

• extent of body and flight-feather molt

• extent of primary-feather wear

• presence of molt limits and plumage characteristics

• wing chord

• fat class and body mass

• date and time of capture (net-run time)

• station and net site where captured

• any pertinent notes

Effort data (i.e., the number and timing of net-hours on each day of operation) were also

collected in a standardized manner. In order to allow constant-effort comparisons of data, the


times of opening and closing the array of mist nets and of beginning each net check were

recorded to the nearest ten minutes. The breeding (summer residency) status (confirmed breeder,

likely breeder, non-breeder) of each species seen, heard, or captured at each MAPS station on

each day of operation was recorded using techniques similar to those employed for breeding bird

atlas projects.

For each of the five stations, simple habitat maps prepared in previous years (indicating extent

and location of major habitats, as well as structures, roads, trails, and streams) were checked and

updated where necessary. The pattern and extent of cover of each of four major vertical layers of

vegetation (upperstory, midstory, understory, and ground cover), in each major habitat type, were

classified into one of twelve pattern types and eleven cover categories according to guidelines in

the MAPS Habitat Structure Assessment Protocol (Nott et al. 2003).

Computer Data Entry and Verification

The computer entry of all banding data was completed by John W. Shipman of Zoological Data

Processing, Socorro, NM. The critical data for each banding record (capture code, band number,

species, age, sex, date, capture time, station, and net number) were proofed by hand against the

raw data and any computer-entry errors were corrected. Computer entry of effort and vegetation

data was completed by IBP biologists using custom data entry programs. All banding data were

then run through a series of verification programs as follows:

• Clean-up programs to check the validity of all codes entered and the ranges of all

numerical data.

• Cross-check programs to compare station, date, and net fields from the banding data with

those from the summary of mist netting effort data.

• Cross-check programs to compare species, age, and sex determinations against degree of

skull pneumaticization, breeding condition (extent of cloacal protuberance and brood

patch), and extent of body and flight-feather molt, primary-feather wear, and juvenal

plumage.

• Screening programs which allow identification of unusual or duplicate band numbers or

unusual band sizes for each species.

• Verification programs to screen banding and recapture data from all years of operation for

inconsistent species, age, or sex determinations for each band number.

Any discrepancies or suspicious data identified by any of these programs were examined

manually and corrected if necessary. Wing chord, weight, station of capture, date, and any

pertinent notes were used as supplementary information for the correct determination of species,

age, and sex in all of these verification processes.

Data Analysis

We classified the landbird species captured in mist nets into six groups based upon their breeding

or summer residency status. Each species was classified as one of the following:


• a regular breeder (B) if we had positive or probable evidence of breeding or summer

residency within the boundaries of the MAPS station during all years that the station was

operated.

• a usual breeder (U) if we had positive or probable evidence of breeding or summer

residency within the boundaries of the MAPS station during more than half but not all of

the years that the station was operated.

• an occasional breeder (O) if we had positive or probable evidence of breeding or summer

residency within the boundaries of the MAPS station during half or fewer of the years

that the station was operated.

• a transient (T) if the species was never a breeder or summer resident at the station, but the

station was within the overall breeding range of the species.

• an altitudinal disperser (A) if the species breeds only at lower elevation than that of the

station but disperses to higher elevations after breeding.

• a migrant (M) if the station was not located within the overall breeding range of the

species.

Data for a given species from a given station were included in productivity analyses if the station

was within the breeding range of the species; that is, data were included from stations where the

species was a breeder (B, U, or O), or transient (T), but not where the species was an altitudinal

disperser (A) or a migrant (M). Data for a given species from a given station were included in

trend analyses only if the species was classified as a regular (B) or usual (U) breeder at the

station. Throughout this report we define Atarget species@ for trend and survivorship analyses as

those for which an average of 2.5 individual adult birds were captured per year at all stations

combined or at each station for station-specific analysis.

Adult population index and productivity analyses

The proofed, verified, and corrected banding data from all sixteen years were run through a series

of analysis programs that calculated for each species:

• the numbers of newly banded birds, recaptured birds, and birds released unbanded.

• the numbers and capture rates (per 600 net-hours) of first captures (in a given year) of

individual adult and young birds.

• the reproductive index. Following the procedures pioneered by the British Trust for

Ornithology (BTO) in their CES Scheme (Peach et al. 1996), we used the number of adult

birds captured as an index of adult population size. For each species each year, we

calculated a yearly reproductive index as the number of young divided by the number of

adults.


Analyses of trends in adult population size and productivity

For each target species and for all species pooled we examined 17-year (1993-2009) trends in

adult population size and productivity (reproductive index) using data from all five stations

combined. Year-to-year comparisons were made in a Aconstant-effort@ manner by means of an

analysis program that used actual net-run (capture) times and net-opening and -closing times on a

net-by-net and period-by-period basis. We excluded captures that occurred in a given net in a

given period in one year during the time when that net was not operated in that period in the

other year. For trends in population size, we first calculated adult population indices for each

species for each of the 17 years based on an arbitrary starting index of 1.0 in the first year of

station operation or analysis (1993). The constant-effort changes were used to calculate these

Achain@ indices in each subsequent year by multiplying the proportional change (percent change

divided by 100) between the two years times the index of the previous year and adding that figure

to the index of the previous year:

PSIi+1 = PSIi + PSIi * (di/100),

where PSIi is the population size index for year i and di is the percentage change in constant-

effort numbers from year i to year i+1. A regression analysis was then run to determine the slope

(PT) of these indices. Because the indices for adult population size are based on percentage

changes, we further calculated the annual percent change (APC), defined as the average change

per year, to provide an estimate of the population trend for the species; APC was calculated as:

(slope of the regression line / predicted value for the first year)*100

We present the APC, the standard error of the slope (SE), the correlation coefficient (r), and the

significance of the correlation (P) to describe each trend. For 17-year trends, species for which r

> 0.30 are considered to have a substantially increasing trend, those for which r < -0.30 are

considered to have a substantially decreasing trend, those for which absolute r < 0.3 and SE <

0.015 are considered to have a non-substantial and non-fluctuating trend, and those for which

absolute r < 0.3 and SE > 0.015 are considered to have non-substantial, widely fluctuating trends.

Trends in productivity, PrT, for all stations combined were calculated in an analogous manner by

starting with actual productivity values in 1993 and calculating each successive year=s value

based on the actual constant-effort changes in productivity between each pair of consecutive

years. For trends in productivity, the slope (PrT) and its standard error (SE) are presented, along

with the correlation coefficient (r), and the significance of the correlation (P). Productivity

trends are characterized in a manner analogous to that for population trends, except that, for non-

substantial trends, we do not attempt to distinguish between those that are widely fluctuating and

those that are non-fluctuating.


RESULTS

A total of 2,161.3 net-hours was accumulated at the five MAPS stations operated in Yosemite

National Park in 2009 (Table 1). Data from 1,927.0 of these net-hours could be compared

directly to the previous year’s data in a constant-effort manner.

2009 Indices of Adult Population Size and Post-fledging Productivity

We present the 2009 numbers of newly-banded, unbanded, and recaptured birds for each species

at each of the five stations individually and for all stations combined in Table 2. A total of 2,397

captures of 70 species was recorded during the summer of 2009. Newly banded birds comprised

73.6% of the total captures. The greatest number of total captures (810) was recorded at the

Hodgdon Meadow station and the smallest number of total captures (220) was recorded at the

White Wolf Meadow station. The highest species richness occurred at Hodgdon Meadow (42

species) and the lowest species richness occurred at White Wolf Meadow (30 species).

The 2009 capture rates (per 600 net-hours) of individual adult and young birds and the 2009

reproductive index (number of young birds per adult) are presented for each species and for all

species pooled at each station and all stations combined in Table 3. We present capture rates

(captures per 600 net-hours) rather than absolute numbers of birds in this table so that the data

can be compared among stations which, because of the vagaries of weather and other factors, can

differ from one another in effort expended (see Table 1). These capture indices suggest that the

total adult population size in 2009 was greatest at Crane Flat (252.4 adults/600 net-hours),

followed in descending order by Hodgdon Meadow (241.8), Gin Flat East Meadow (211.4),

White Wolf Meadow (171.3), and Big Meadow (155.3). The capture rate of young of all species

pooled at each station in 2009 was highest at Gin Flat East Meadow (358.9 young/600 net-

hours), followed by Crane Flat, Hodgdon Meadow, Big Meadow, and White Wolf Meadow

(Table 3). Reproductive index (the number of young per adult) at the five stations in 2009 was

greatest at Gin Flat East Meadow (1.70), followed by Crane Flat (0.91), Big Meadow (0.86),

Hodgdon Meadow (0.82), and White Wolf Meadow (0.49). The mean adult capture rate for the

five stations combined was 209.9 per 600 net hours and the overall reproductive index was 0.93

in 2009. The adult capture rate was similar to that of 2008 (214.3) but the reproductive index was

lower in 2009 than in 2008 (1.14).

In 2009 Orange-crowned Warbler was the most frequently captured species, followed by Dark-

eyed Junco, MacGillivray’s Warbler, Lincoln’s Sparrow, Song Sparrow, Golden-crowned

Kinglet, Anna's Hummingbird, Nashville Warbler, and Yellow-rumped Warbler (Table 2).

Overall, the most abundant breeding species in 2009 (as determined by the number of adults

captured per 600 net-hours; Table 3), not including Orange-crowned Warbler (because most if

not all of the individuals captured in Yosemite are dispersing upslope from lower-elevation

breeding sites outside the park) and Anna's Hummingbird (because hummingbirds were not

banded to determine individual adults), in decreasing order, were Dark- eyed Junco,

MacGillivray’s Warbler, Lincoln’s Sparrow, American Robin, Warbling Vireo, Black-headed

Grosbeak, Lazuli Bunting, Red-breasted Sapsucker, and Dusky Flycatcher. The following is a


list of such species (captured at a rate of at least 8.0 adults per 600 net-hours), in decreasing

order, at each station in 2009 (Table 3):

White Wolf Meadow

Dark-eyed Junco

American Robin

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Lincoln's Sparrow

Pine Siskin

Chipping Sparrow

Gin Flat East Meadow

Lincoln's Sparrow

Dark-eyed Junco


MacGillivray’s Warbler

American Robin

Dusky Flycatcher

Western Tanager

Pine Siskin

Lesser Goldfinch

Crane Flat

Dark-eyed Junco

Lincoln’s Sparrow


Lazuli Bunting


Dusky Flycatcher

Warbling Vireo

Chipping Sparrow

Hermit Warbler

Hodgdon Meadow


Black-headed Grosbeak

Song Sparrow

Warbling Vireo

Red-breasted Sapsucker

Lincoln’s Sparrow


Western Wood-Pewee

Big Meadow

Nashville Warbler

Lazuli Bunting

Purple Finch

Western Wood-Pewee

Warbling Vireo

Wrentit

Spotted Towhee

Multi-year Trends in Adult Population Size and Productivity

AChain@ indices of adult population size for the 17-year period 1993-2009 are presented for 25

target species and for all species pooled in Figure 2. We used annual percent change (APC) for

each species as an estimate of the mean annual population trend for that species. These estimates

of APC, along with the standard error of the slope (in parentheses), the correlation coefficient (r),

and the significance of the correlation (P), are included for each target species and for all species

pooled on each graph.

Populations of 10 species as well as all species pooled showed substantial declining trends

(r < -0.3). The declines for Golden-crowned Kinglet, Hermit Warbler, and Lazuli Bunting were

highly significant (P < 0.01); those for Western Wood-Pewee, Dusky Flycatcher, Warbling

Vireo, Yellow Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, and Purple Finch were significant (P < 0.05); and

those of Hermit Thrush and all species pooled were not significant (P > 0.10). In contrast,

populations of only five species showed substantial increasing trends (r > 0.3), which were

highly significant for Mountain Chickadee, MacGillivray’s Warbler, and Western Tanager;

significant for Song Sparrow; and not significant for Yellow-rumped Warbler. Populations of

the remaining 10 target species (Red-breasted Sapsucker, Hammond’s Flycatcher, Cassin’s

Vireo, Brown Creeper, American Robin, Chipping Sparrow, Lincoln’s Sparrow, Black-headed

Grosbeak, Pine Siskin, and Lesser Goldfinch) showed non-substantial (absolute r < 0.3) trends.

Seven of these ten species showed substantially fluctuating (SE of the slope > 0.015) population


trends, whereas three species (Chipping Sparrow, Lincoln's Sparrow, and Lesser Goldfinch)

showed non-fluctuating trends. Overall, 14 of the 25 species showed negative trends, one species

(Lincoln's Sparrow) showed a flat trend, and 10 species showed positive trends. The substantial

negative trend for all species pooled had been highly significant (P = 0.009) after 14 years of data

had been collected (Siegel et al. 2007) but based on increasing populations in 2006-2009 was no

longer significant after 17 years of data had been collected. Nevertheless, the decline continues

to be substantial at a decreasing rate of -0.6% per year, suggesting that total populations of

landbirds in Yosemite have declined by 9.7% over the 17-year period (1993-2009).

AChain@ indices of productivity for each of the 17 years (1993-2009) are shown in Figure 3 for

the same 25 target species and all species pooled, at all five stations combined. Five species

showed substantially declining productivity trends (r < -0.30), which were highly significant for

Lesser Goldfinch, significant for Hermit Thrush and MacGillivray's Warbler, marginally

significant (0.05 < P < 0.10) for Western Wood-Pewee, and not significant for Chipping

Sparrow. In contrast, 12 species as well as all species pooled showed substantially increasing

productivity trends (r > 0.30); these were highly significant for Red-breasted Sapsucker,

American Robin, Yellow Warbler, Lincoln's Sparrow, Black-headed Grosbeak, Lazuli Bunting,

and Purple Finch; significant for Mountain Chickadee, Golden-crowned Kinglet, and Hermit

Warbler; and not significant for Dusky Flycatcher, Warbling Vireo, and all species pooled. The

remaining eight species (Hammond's Flycatcher, Cassin’s Vireo, Brown Creeper, Yellow-

rumped Warbler, Western Tanager, Song Sparrow, Dark-eyed Junco, and Pine Siskin) showed

non-substantial productivity trends. Overall, 16 of the 25 target species had positive productivity

trends and nine had negative productivity trends. The productivity trend for all species pooled

indicated an average annual increase of 0.022 per year.

DISCUSSION

The MAPS Program in Yosemite continues to yield station-specific indices of adult population

size and post-fledging productivity, park-wide estimates of annual survival rates of adults, and

important information on annual changes and longer-term trends in these indices and estimates,

for over 25 target species. The results in this and previous reports underscore the complexity of

the population dynamics of Yosemite’s breeding birds, complexity which can only be unraveled

through long-term data collection.

The Yosemite MAPS Program also continues to yield both new findings and new hypotheses

about landbird population dynamics in the park. The generation of preliminary findings and new

hypotheses that can then be followed up with targeted research is one of the hallmarks of an

effective ecological monitoring program. A recent example of this monitoring-research cycle is

that MAPS results over the past two decades suggested disturbing declines in the park’s Willow

Flycatcher population, prompting an intensive research project on Willow Flycatcher in the park

(Siegel et al. 2008). The MAPS program at Yosemite is particularly well-suited to studying the

effects of annual weather variation and climate change on birds, and this will be an important

focus of our next major analytical report for the Yosemite MAPS program, which will be

completed after the 2010 field season.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to our 2009 field crew: Jessica Groetsch, Kenton Buck, Jeff Moker (crew leader)

and Alan Monroy-Ojeda. Additional assistance and supervision in the field was provided by IBP

Biologist Bob Wilkerson. Financial support for the MAPS Program in Yosemite National Park

during 2009 was provided by the National Park Service through a Cooperative Agreement

between Yosemite National Park and The Institute for Bird Populations, with funding provided

by the Yosemite Fund. This is Contribution Number 389 of The Institute for Bird Populations.


LITERATURE CITED

Bock, C. E. and Z. F. Jones. 2004. Avian habitat evaluation: should counting birds count?

Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2:403-410.

Cordell, H. K. and N. G. Herbert. 2002. The popularity of birding is still growing.

Birding Feb.:54-61.

Cordell, H. K., N. G. Herbert, and F. Pandolfi. 1999. The growing popularity of birding

in the United States. Birding 3:168-176.

DeSante, D. F. 1990. The role of recruitment in the dynamics of a Sierran subalpine bird

community. American Naturalist 136:429-455.

DeSante, D. F. 1992. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS): a sharp, rather

than blunt, tool for monitoring and assessing landbird populations. In: D. R. McCullough and R.

H. Barrett (Eds.), Wildlife 2001: Populations, pp. 511-521. (London, U.K.: Elsevier Applied

Science).

DeSante, D. F. 1995. Suggestions for future directions for studies of marked migratory

Landbirds from the perspective of a practitioner in population management and conservation.

Journal of Applied Statistics 22:949-965.

DeSante, D. F., K. M. Burton, J. F. Saracco, and B. L. Walker. 1995. Productivity indices and

survival rate estimates from MAPS, a continent-wide programme of constant-effort mist netting

in North America. Journal of Applied Statistics 22:935-947.

DeSante, D. F., K. M. Burton, P. Velez, D. Froehlich, and D. R. Kaschube. 2009. MAPS

manual. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

DeSante, D. F., and T. L. George. 1994. Population trends in the landbirds of western North

America, In: J. R. Jehl, Jr. and N. K. Johnson (Eds.), A Century of Avifaunal Change in Western

North America, Studies in Avian Biology, No. 15, pp. 173-190 (Cooper Ornithological Society).

George, T. L., A. C. Fowler, R. L. Knight, and L.C. McEwen. 1992. Impacts of a severe

drought on grassland birds in western North America. Ecological Applications 2:275-284.

Nott, M. P., D. F. DeSante, and N. Michel. 2003. Monitoring Avian Productivity and

Survivorship (MAPS) Habitat Structure Assessment Protocol. The Institute for Bird Populations,

Pt. Reyes Station, CA.

Peach, W. J., S. T. Buckland, and S. R. Baillie. 1996. The use of constant effort mist-netting to

measure between-year changes in the abundance and productivity of common passerines. Bird

Study 43:142-156.


Pyle, P., D. R. Kaschube, R. B. Siegel, and D. F. DeSante. 2006. The 2005 annual report of the

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program in Yosemite National Park.

The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

Siegel, R. S., P. Pyle, D. Kaschube, and D. F. Desante. 2007. The 2006 Annual Report of the


The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956.

Siegel, R. B., R. L. Wilkerson, and D. F. DeSante. 2008. Extirpation of the Willow Flycatcher

from Yosemite National Park. Western Birds 39:8-21.

Siegel, R. S., P. Pyle, D. Kaschube, and S. Stock. 2009. The 2008 Annual Report of the


The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956.

Silsbee, G. G. and D. L. Peterson. 1991. Designing and implementing comprehensive

long-term inventory and monitoring programs for National Park System lands. Natural

Resources Report NPS/NRUW/NRR-91/04, Denver, CO.

Simons, T. R., K. N. Rabenold, D. A. Buehler, J. A. Collazo, and K. E. Fransreb. 1999.

The role of indicator species: neotropical migratory song birds. Pages 187-208 in J. D. Peine,

(ed.), Ecosystem management for sustainability: principles and practices illustrated by a regional

biosphere reserve cooperative. Lewis Publishers. New York.

Temple, S. A., and J. A. Wiens. 1989. Bird populations and environmental changes: can birds

be bio-indicators? American Birds 43:260-270.


Table 1. Summary of the 2009 operation of the five MAPS stations in Yosemite National Park.

2009 operation

Station

Name Code No. Major Habitat Type Latitude-longitude

Avg

Elev.

(m) Total number of

net-hours1

No. of

periods

Inclusive

dates

White Wolf

Meadow

WHWO 11904 Wet montane meadow, red fir/

lodgepole pine forest 37°52'10"N,-119°39'08"W 2402 388.8 (335.2) 7 6/09 - 8/04

Gin Flat East

Meadow

GFEM 11980 Wet montane meadow, mixed fir

forest 37°45'59"N,-119°45'37"W 2073 337.7 (324.2) 7 6/04 - 8/03

Crane Flat CRFL 11907 Wet montane meadow, willow/

aspen thickets, mixed coniferous

forest

37°45'20"N,-119°48'13"W 1875 416.0 (380.3) 8 5/23 - 8/02

Hodgdon

Meadow

HODG 11107 Wet montane meadow, willow/

dogwood thickets, mixed oak and

coniferous forest

37°47'41"N,-119°51'50"W 1408 605.5 (549.0) 8 5/20 - 7/31

Big Meadow BIME 11905 Riparian willows, mixed

coniferous forest (largely

consumed by a stand-replacing

fire in 1990), open dry meadow

37°42'16"N,-119°45'07"W 1311 413.3 (338.3) 8 5/22 - 7/30

ALL STATIONS COMBINED 2161.3 (1927.0) 8 5/20 - 8/04

1 Total net-hours in 2009. Net-hours in 2009 that could be compared in a constant-effort manner to 2008 are shown in parentheses.


Table 2. Capture summary for the five individual MAPS stations operated in Yosemite National Park in 2009. N = Newly Banded, U = Unbanded,

R = Recaptures of banded birds.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

White Wolf

Meadow

Gin Flat East

Meadow Crane Flat

Hodgdon

Meadow Big Meadow

All five stations

combined

––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– –––––––––––––

Species N U R N U R N U R N U R N U R N U R

–––––––––––––––––––––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––

California Quail 1 1

Anna's Hummingbird 1 4 5 44 27 81

Calliope Hummingbird 2 1 4 7

Rufous Hummingbird 7 4 9 5 1 26

Allen's Hummingbird 1 1

Unident. Selasphorus Humm. 1 1 2

Unidentified Hummingbird 1 1

Acorn Woodpecker 2 2

Williamson's Sapsucker 2 1 3 5 1

Red-breasted Sapsucker 1 6 1 1 7 1 23 1 5 6 43 2 7

Downy Woodpecker 1 1 2

Hairy Woodpecker 1 2 1 4

White-headed Woodpecker 3 1 4

Black-backed Woodpecker 1 1

Northern Flicker 1 1

Olive-sided Flycatcher 2 2

Western Wood-Pewee 7 6 3 8 1 21 4

Willow Flycatcher 1 1

Hammond's Flycatcher 2 7 3 1 13

Dusky Flycatcher 4 1 12 3 12 7 2 1 31 1 10

Pacific-slope Flycatcher 1 3 3 15 1 23

Unident. Empidonax Flycat. 1 1 2

Black Phoebe 8 1 8 1

Western Kingbird 1 1

Unidentified Flycatcher 1 2 3

Cassin's Vireo 1 2 1 9 3 1 16 1


Table 2, continued. Capture summary for the five individual MAPS stations operated in Yosemite National Park in 2009. N = Newly Banded,

U = Unbanded, R = Recaptures of banded birds.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– White Wolf

Meadow

Gin Flat East

Meadow Crane Flat

Hodgdon

Meadow Big Meadow

All five stations

combined

––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– –––––––––––––


–––––––––––––––––––––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––

Warbling Vireo 2 2 11 3 25 3 6 1 3 46 1 9

Steller's Jay 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1

Mountain Chickadee 3 4 6 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 16 1 10

Oak Titmouse 3 3

Bushtit 4 3 4 3

Red-breasted Nuthatch 7 4 6 8 1 2 25 1 2

White-breasted Nuthatch 1 1

Brown Creeper 8 1 5 7 1 1 5 25 2 1

Bewick's Wren 1 1

House Wren 1 1 3 1 4 1 8 1 3 15 3 5

Winter Wren 1 1

Unidentified Wren 1 1

Golden-crowned Kinglet 3 50 2 17 1 10 1 80 3 1

Western Bluebird 2 2

Hermit Thrush 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 2

American Robin 12 3 12 1 4 2 8 1 2 1 37 1 8

Wrentit 12 1 12 1

Orange-crowned Warbler 5 22 1 99 2 12 173 3 24 88 4 7 387 10 43

Nashville Warbler 9 1 8 22 1 13 1 18 5 70 1 7

Yellow Warbler 2 5 1 6 6 13 7

Yellow-rumped Warbler 8 27 4 16 1 1 18 1 1 70 2 5

Black-throated Gray Warbler 3 3

Townsend's Warbler 1 1

Hermit Warbler 3 19 12 1 16 1 50 1 1

American Redstart 1 1

MacGillivray's Warbler 11 1 7 27 21 57 5 52 7 1 102 6 81




––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– White Wolf

Meadow

Gin Flat East

Meadow Crane Flat

Hodgdon

Meadow Big Meadow

All five stations

combined

––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– –––––––––––––


–––––––––––––––––––––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––

Hooded Warbler 1 1

Wilson's Warbler 7 1 7 5 1 19 2

Western Tanager 2 6 2 7 2 3 20 2

Green-tailed Towhee 2 1 3

Spotted Towhee 1 6 5 1 3 12 1 3

California Towhee 1 1

Chipping Sparrow 7 2 8 1 1 5 1 23 1 1

Fox Sparrow 5 5

Song Sparrow 10 1 8 40 2 30 5 1 55 3 39

Lincoln's Sparrow 7 2 4 27 2 31 53 6 32 12 4 11 99 14 78

Dark-eyed Junco 53 3 23 38 5 11 59 3 27 40 2 8 1 191 13 69

Unidentified Sparrow 2 1 2 4 9

Black-headed Grosbeak 19 10 19 1 38 11

Lazuli Bunting 1 15 6 20 1 36 7

Red-winged Blackbird 2 2

Brewer's Blackbird 1 1

Brown-headed Cowbird 1 1

Bullock's Oriole 2 2

Pine Grosbeak 6 6

Purple Finch 1 4 12 24 1 41 1

Cassin's Finch 3 3 2 1 7 2

Pine Siskin 8 1 15 1 7 31 1

Lesser Goldfinch 9 1 3 1 12 2

Lawrence's Goldfinch 4 4

Unidentified Bird 1 1




––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– White Wolf

Meadow

Gin Flat East

Meadow Crane Flat

Hodgdon

Meadow Big Meadow

All five stations

combined

––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– –––––––––––––


–––––––––––––––––––––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– ––– –––

ALL SPECIES POOLED 163 19 38 330 27 62 423 38 127 569 83 158 279 43 38 1764 210 423

Total Number of Captures 220 419 588 810 360 2397

Number of Species 27 8 8 34 11 11 35 13 18 39 15 17 38 9 16 65 29 33

Total Number of Species 30 38 39 42 41 70

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


Table 3. Numbers of aged individual birds captured per 600 net-hours and proportion of young in the catch at the five individual MAPS stations

operated in Yosemite National Park in 2009.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

White Wolf

Meadow

Gin Flat East

Meadow Crane Flat Hodgdon Meadow Big Meadow

All five stations

combined

––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– –––––––––––––

Species Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg.

––––––––––––––––––––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– ––––

Acorn Woodpecker 2.9 0.0 0.00 0.6 0.0 0.00

Williamson's Sapsucker 4.6 0.0 0.00 0.0 5.3 und.1 0.8 0.8 1.00

Red-breasted Sapsucker 1.5 0.0 0.00 7.1 5.3 0.75 5.8 4.3 0.75 14.9 8.9 0.60 1.5 7.3 5.00 6.9 5.6 0.80

Downy Woodpecker 0.0 1.0 und.1 0.0 1.5 und.

1 0.0 0.6 und.

1

Hairy Woodpecker 1.5 0.0 0.00 1.8 1.8 1.00 0.0 1.4 und.1 0.6 0.6 1.00

White-headed Woodpecker 3.6 1.8 0.50 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.8 0.3 0.33

Black-backed Woodpecker 1.5 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.00

Northern Flicker 0.0 1.4 und. 0.0 0.3 und.

Olive-sided Flycatcher 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.6 0.0 0.00

Western Wood-Pewee 7.1 5.3 0.75 8.9 0.0 0.00 8.7 2.9 0.33 5.3 1.4 0.26

Willow Flycatcher 1.4 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.00

Hammond's Flycatcher 0.0 3.1 und.1 0.0 12.4 und. 1.4 2.9 2.00 0.0 1.0 und. 0.3 3.3 12.00

Dusky Flycatcher 6.2 0.0 0.00 10.7 14.2 1.33 13.0 7.2 0.56 2.0 0.0 0.00 1.5 0.0 0.00 6.1 3.6 0.59

Pacific-slope Flycatcher 1.5 0.0 0.00 1.8 3.6 2.00 2.9 1.4 0.50 4.0 10.9 2.75 1.5 0.0 0.00 2.5 3.9 1.56

Black Phoebe 1.5 11.6 8.00 0.3 2.2 8.00

Western Kingbird 0.0 1.5 und. 0.0 0.3 und.

Cassin's Vireo 0.0 1.5 und. 1.8 1.8 1.00 0.0 1.4 und. 5.9 3.0 0.50 5.8 0.0 0.00 3.1 1.7 0.54

Warbling Vireo 3.1 0.0 0.00 3.6 0.0 0.00 13.0 5.8 0.44 15.9 8.9 0.56 8.7 0.0 0.00 9.7 3.6 0.37

Steller's Jay 3.6 0.0 0.00 1.4 0.0 0.00 2.0 0.0 0.00 1.4 0.0 0.00

Mountain Chickadee 7.7 0.0 0.00 5.3 7.1 1.33 1.4 4.3 3.00 3.0 2.0 0.67 1.5 0.0 0.00 3.6 2.5 0.69

Oak Titmouse 1.5 2.9 2.00 0.3 0.6 2.00

Bushtit 0.0 4.4 und. 0.0 0.8 und.

Red-breasted Nuthatch 4.6 6.2 1.33 3.6 3.6 1.00 4.3 4.3 1.00 5.9 4.0 0.67 3.9 3.6 0.93

White-breasted Nuthatch 1.5 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.00

Brown Creeper 6.2 6.2 1.00 1.8 5.3 3.00 2.9 8.7 3.00 1.0 4.0 4.00 2.2 4.7 2.13

Bewick's Wren 0.0 1.5 und. 0.0 0.3 und.


Table 3, continued. Numbers of aged individual birds captured per 600 net-hours and proportion of young in the catch at the five individual MAPS

stations operated in Yosemite National Park in 2009.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

White Wolf

Meadow

Gin Flat East


All five stations

combined

––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– –––––––––––––

Species Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg.

––––––––––––––––––––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– ––––

House Wren 4.4 7.3 1.67 0.8 1.4 1.67

Winter Wren 1.4 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.00

Golden-crowned Kinglet 1.5 3.1 2.00 1.8 87.1 49.00 7.2 17.3 2.40 2.0 7.9 4.00 2.5 19.7 7.89

Western Bluebird 0.0 3.6 und. 0.0 0.6 und.

Hermit Thrush 4.6 0.0 0.00 4.3 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.0 und. 1.5 0.0 0.00 1.9 0.3 0.14

American Robin 20.1 1.5 0.08 16.0 5.3 0.33 7.2 0.0 0.00 7.9 2.0 0.25 1.5 0.0 0.00 10.0 1.7 0.17

Wrentit 8.7 10.2 1.17 1.7 1.9 1.17

Nashville Warbler 2.0 10.9 5.50 20.3 7.3 0.36 4.4 4.4 1.00

Yellow Warbler 1.4 1.4 1.00 4.0 1.0 0.25 7.3 4.4 0.60 2.8 1.4 0.50

Yellow-rumped Warbler 10.8 1.5 0.14 17.8 33.8 1.90 18.8 5.8 0.31 10.9 6.9 0.64 1.5 0.0 0.00 11.7 8.6 0.74

Black-throated Gray Warbler 0.0 3.0 und. 0.0 0.8 und.

Hermit Warbler 0.0 4.6 und. 0.0 33.8 und. 11.5 7.2 0.63 5.9 9.9 1.67 3.9 10.3 2.64

MacGillivray's Warbler 17.8 1.8 0.10 26.0 21.6 0.83 51.5 24.8 0.48 1.5 8.7 6.00 22.5 13.0 0.58

Wilson's Warbler 5.3 7.1 1.33 4.3 5.8 1.33 3.0 1.0 0.33 2.5 2.5 1.00

Western Tanager 3.1 0.0 0.00 10.7 0.0 0.00 2.9 0.0 0.00 5.0 4.0 0.80 4.4 0.0 0.00 5.0 1.1 0.22

Green-tailed Towhee 3.6 0.0 0.00 1.5 0.0 0.00 0.8 0.0 0.00

Spotted Towhee 0.0 1.8 und. 2.0 4.0 2.00 8.7 0.0 0.00 2.2 1.4 0.63

California Towhee 1.5 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.00

Chipping Sparrow 9.3 1.5 0.17 0.0 3.6 und. 13.0 0.0 0.00 3.0 2.0 0.67 1.5 0.0 0.00 5.3 1.4 0.26

Fox Sparrow 5.3 3.6 0.67 0.8 0.6 0.67

Song Sparrow 2.9 13.0 4.50 19.8 28.7 1.45 4.4 2.9 0.67 6.9 11.1 1.60

Lincoln's Sparrow 10.8 4.6 0.43 33.8 30.2 0.90 33.2 54.8 1.65 11.9 4.0 0.33 16.9 17.2 1.02

Dark-eyed Junco 47.8 46.3 0.97 24.9 53.3 2.14 43.3 56.3 1.30 5.9 35.7 6.00 1.5 0.0 0.00 22.8 37.5 1.65

Black-headed Grosbeak 25.8 0.0 0.00 5.8 21.8 3.75 8.3 4.2 0.50

Lazuli Bunting 0.0 1.8 und. 20.2 1.4 0.07 20.3 10.2 0.50 7.8 2.5 0.32


Table 3, continued. Numbers of aged individual birds captured per 600 net-hours and proportion of young in the catch at the five individual MAPS

stations operated in Yosemite National Park in 2009.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

White Wolf

Meadow

Gin Flat East


All five stations

combined

––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– ––––––––––––– –––––––––––––

Species Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg. Ad. Yg.

Prop.

Yg.

––––––––––––––––––––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– ––––

Red-winged Blackbird 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.6 0.0 0.00

Brewer's Blackbird 1.5 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.00

Brown-headed Cowbird 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.0 0.00

Bullock's Oriole 1.5 1.5 1.00 0.3 0.3 1.00

Pine Grosbeak 7.7 1.5 0.20 1.4 0.3 0.20

Purple Finch 1.5 0.0 0.00 4.3 1.4 0.33 5.9 5.9 1.00 13.1 21.8 1.67 5.3 6.1 1.16

Cassin's Finch 4.6 0.0 0.00 1.8 3.6 2.00 1.4 0.0 0.00 1.4 0.6 0.40

Pine Siskin 10.8 1.5 0.14 10.7 16.0 1.50 1.4 0.0 0.00 5.9 1.0 0.17 5.6 3.1 0.55

Lesser Goldfinch 10.7 5.3 0.50 5.8 0.0 0.00 2.8 0.8 0.30

Lawrence's Goldfinch 1.5 4.4 3.00 0.3 0.8 3.00

––––––––––––––––––––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– –––– ––––

ALL SPECIES POOLED 171.3 83.3 0.49 211.4 358.9 1.70 252.4 229.3 0.91 241.8 197.2 0.82 155.3 133.5 0.86 209.9 196.0 0.93

Number of Species 22.0 13.0 25.0 28.0 28.0 22.0 31.0 27.0 33.0 19.0 54.0 49.0

Total Number of Species 25.0 32.0 31.0 35.0 37.0 61.0

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Reproductive index (young/adult) is undefined because no adults of this species were captured at this station in this year.


Figure 1. Locations of ongoing Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) bird

banding stations at Yosemite National Park.


Ind

ex o

f ad

ult

po

pu

lati

on

siz

e

APC= 0.6 (0.015) APC= -3.2 (0.019) APC= -0.1 (0.023) APC= -2.9 (0.013)

r= 0.063, P= 0.810

r= -0.522,

r= -0.010, P= 0.968

P= 0.032 r= -0.568, P= 0.017

APC= 3.1 (0.030) APC= -1.6 (0.008) APC= 13.9 (0.023) APC= 3.0 (0.043)

r= 0.678, P= 0.003

r= 0.277, P= 0.282 r= -0.512, P= 0.036 r= 0.210, P= 0.418

APC= -5.8 (0.018) APC= -2.8 (0.022) APC= 1.7 (0.016) APC= -3.5 (0.018)

r= -0.395,

r= -0.730, P= 0.001 P= 0.116 r= 0.246, P= 0.341 r= -0.524, P= 0.031

Year

Figure 2. Population trends for 25 species and all species pooled at the five currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National Park over the 17 years

1993-2009. The index of population size was arbitrarily defined as 1.0 in 1993. Indices for subsequent years were determined from constant-effort between-year

changes in the number of adult birds captured from stations where the species was a regular or usual breeder and summer resident. The annual percentage change

in the index of adult population size was used as the measure of the population trend (APC), and it and the standard error of the slope (in parentheses) are

presented on each graph. The correlation coefficient (r) and significance of the correlation coefficient (P) are also shown on each graph.


Ind

ex o

f ad

ult

po

pu

lati

on

siz

e

APC= 3.7 (0.054) APC= -4.3 (0.008) APC= 8.8 (0.013) APC= 8.7 (0.048)

r= 0.362, P= 0.153 r= -0.766, P= 0.000 r= 0.850, P= 0.000 r= 0.627, P= 0.007

APC= -2.7 (0.013) APC= 3.0 (0.017) APC= 0.0 (0.011) APC= -1.8 (0.007)

r= -0.276, P= 0.284

r= 0.518, P= 0.033 r= 0.000, P= 0.994 r= -0.555, P= 0.021

APC= -1.5 (0.017) APC= -6.1 (0.008) APC= -3.9 (0.018) APC= -2.2 (0.057)

r= -0.206, P= 0.429 r= -0.791, P= 0.000

r= -0.586,

P= 0.013 r= -0.226, P= 0.382

Year

Figure 2, continued. Population trends for 25 species and all species pooled at the five currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National Park over the

17 years 1993-2009. The index of population size was arbitrarily defined as 1.0 in 1993. Indices for subsequent years were determined from constant-effort

between-year changes in the number of adult birds captured from stations where the species was a regular or usual breeder and summer resident. The annual

percentage change in the index of adult population size was used as the measure of the population trend (APC), and it and the standard error of the slope (in

parentheses) are presented on each graph. The correlation coefficient (r) and significance of the correlation coefficient (P) are also shown on each graph.


Ind

ex o

f ad

ult

po

pu

lati

on

siz

e

APC= 0.6 (0.014) APC= -0.6 (0.005)

r= 0.055, P= 0.836

r= -0.315, P= 0.218

Year

Figure 2, continued. Population trends for 25 species and all species pooled at the five currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National Park over the

17 years 1993-2009. The index of population size was arbitrarily defined as 1.0 in 1993. Indices for subsequent years were determined from constant-effort

between-year changes in the number of adult birds captured from stations where the species was a regular or usual breeder and summer resident. The annual

percentage change in the index of adult population size was used as the measure of the population trend (APC), and it and the standard error of the slope (in

parentheses) are presented on each graph. The correlation coefficient (r) and significance of the correlation coefficient (P) are also shown on each graph.


Rep

rod

uct

ive

ind

ex

PrT= 0.090 (0.024) PrT= -0.021 (0.011) PrT= 0.021 (0.119) PrT= 0.011 (0.008)

r= -0.440, P= 0.078 r= 0.046, P= 0.861

r= 0.700, P= 0.002 r= 0.340, P= 0.182

PrT= -0.027 (0.023) PrT= 0.015 (0.010) PrT= 0.107 (0.044) PrT= -0.133 (0.120)

r= -0.275, P= 0.286

r= -0.291, P= 0.257 r= 0.370, P= 0.143 r= 0.531, P= 0.028

PrT= 0.245 (0.105) PrT= -0.041 (0.016) PrT= 0.035 (0.009) PrT= 0.194 (0.037)

r= 0.517, P= 0.034 r= -0.543, P= 0.024

r= 0.708, P= 0.002 r= 0.805, P= 0.000

Year

Figure 3. Trend in productivity for 25 species and all species pooled at the five currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National Park over the

17 years 1993-2009. The 1993 reproductive index was defined as the actual reproductive index; indices for subsequent years were determined from

constant-effort between-year changes in the reproductive index. The slope of the regression line for annual change in the index of productivity was used

as the measure of the productivity trend (PrT), and it and the standard error of the slope (in parentheses) are presented on each graph. The correlation

coefficient (r) and significance of the correlation coefficient (P) are also shown on each graph.


Rep

rod

uct

ive

ind

ex

PrT= 0.029 (0.048) PrT= 0.113 (0.050) PrT= -0.049 (0.023) PrT= 0.012 (0.023)

r= 0.504, P= 0.039 r= -0.486, P= 0.048 r= 0.137, P= 0.600

r= 0.155, P= 0.552

PrT= -0.021 (0.016) PrT= -0.002 (0.023) PrT= 0.032 (0.009) PrT= 0.036 (0.040)

r= -0.326, P= 0.201

r= -0.024, P= 0.927 r= 0.660, P= 0.004 r= 0.228, P= 0.379

PrT= 0.290 (0.048) PrT= 0.124 (0.023) PrT= 0.246 (0.079) PrT= -0.029 (0.042)

r= 0.843, P= 0.000 r= 0.812, P= 0.000 r= 0.627, P= 0.007 r= -0.175, P= 0.500

Year

Figure 3, continued. Trend in productivity for 25 species and all species pooled at the five currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National

Park over the 17 years 1993-2009. The 1993 reproductive index was defined as the actual reproductive index; indices for subsequent years were

determined from constant-effort between-year changes in the reproductive index. The slope of the regression line for annual change in the index of

productivity was used as the measure of the productivity trend (PrT), and it and the standard error of the slope (in parentheses) are presented on each

graph. The correlation coefficient (r) and significance of the correlation coefficient (P) are also shown on each graph.


Rep

rod

uct

ive

ind

ex

PrT= -0.245 (0.043) PrT= 0.022 (0.014)

r= -0.830, P= 0.000 r= 0.378, P= 0.134

Year

Figure 3, continued. Trend in productivity for 25 species and all species pooled at the five currently operating MAPS stations in Yosemite National

Park over the 17 years 1993-2009. The 1993 reproductive index was defined as the actual reproductive index; indices for subsequent years were

determined from constant-effort between-year changes in the reproductive index. The slope of the regression line for annual change in the index of

productivity was used as the measure of the productivity trend (PrT), and it and the standard error of the slope (in parentheses) are presented on each

graph. The correlation coefficient (r) and significance of the correlation coefficient (P) are also shown on each graph.


Appendix I. Numerical listing (in AOU checklist order) of all the species sequence numbers, species alpha

codes, and species names for all species banded or encountered during the 20 years, 1990-2009, of the

MAPS Program on the six stations ever operated on Yosemite National Park.

Cumulative breeding status for all years in which each station was operated are also included (B = Regular

Breeder (all years); U = Usual Breeder (>½, not all, years); O = Occasional Breeder (<½ years); T =

Transient; M = Migrant; A= Altitudinal Disperser; ? = Uncertain Species ID

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

NUMB SPEC SPECIES NAME

Wh

ite Wo

lf

(WH

WO

)

Gin

Flat E

ast Mead

ow

(GF

EM

)

Cran

e Flat

(CR

FL

)

Ho

dg

do

n M

eado

w

(HO

DG

)

Big

Mead

ow

(BIM

E)

Tam

arack M

eado

w

(TA

ME

)

−−−−−− −−−−−− −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−−

01010 GBHE Great Blue Heron T

01300 TUVU Turkey Vulture T T T T T

01630 MALL Mallard O O O

01980 COME Common Merganser T

02020 OSPR Osprey T

02170 NOHA Northern Harrier T

02200 SSHA Sharp-shinned Hawk T T

02210 COHA Cooper's Hawk T T O T

02240 NOGO Northern Goshawk T T T

02245 UAHA Unidentified Accipiter Hawk ? ?

02380 RSHA Red-shouldered Hawk T T T

02460 RTHA Red-tailed Hawk T T T U O

02510 GOEA Golden Eagle T

02545 UNHA Unidentified Hawk ? ?

02630 AMKE American Kestrel U

02700 PEFA Peregrine Falcon M

03000 DUGR Dusky Grouse T T O O

03040 WITU Wild Turkey T T

03100 MOUQ Mountain Quail O U O U B

03130 CAQU California Quail T O

03370 VIRA Virginia Rail T T

05440 BTPI Band-tailed Pigeon T T T O T

05570 MODO Mourning Dove T T O O

06670 WESO Western Screech-Owl T

06800 GHOW Great Horned Owl T T O T

06830 NOPO Northern Pygmy-Owl T T

06940 SPOW Spotted Owl O

06970 GGOW Great Gray Owl T O O O

07040 NSWO Northern Saw-whet Owl T

07330 BLSW Black Swift T


Appendix I, continued.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


WH

WO

GF

EM

CR

FL

HO

DG

BIM

E

TA

ME

−−−−−− −−−−−− −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−−

07410 VASW Vaux's Swift T T

07530 WTSW White-throated Swift T T

08640 BCHU Black-chinned Hummingbird T T T

08670 ANHU Anna's Hummingbird T O O U U T

08690 CAHU Calliope Hummingbird T O O O O T

08730 RUHU Rufous Hummingbird M M M M M M

08740 ALHU Allen's Hummingbird M M M M M

08774 USHU Unidentified Selasphorus Hummingbird ? ? ? ? ?

08775 UNHU Unidentified Hummingbird ? ? ? ? ?

09110 BEKI Belted Kingfisher T T U

09390 LEWO Lewis's Woodpecker M

09430 ACWO Acorn Woodpecker T T T U

09570 WISA Williamson's Sapsucker U O T T

09600 RBSA Red-breasted Sapsucker O B B B O O

09640 NUWO Nuttall's Woodpecker T T

09650 DOWO Downy Woodpecker T T T O U T

09660 HAWO Hairy Woodpecker U U U U U B

09690 WHWO White-headed Woodpecker O B B B O B

09710 BBWO Black-backed Woodpecker T T U

09800 RSFL Red-shafted Flicker U B U B B U

09860 PIWO Pileated Woodpecker T U U U T O

09915 UNWO Unidentified Woodpecker ?

11340 OSFL Olive-sided Flycatcher T U O B O B

11380 WEWP Western Wood-Pewee U U O B B B

11475 WIFL Willow Flycatcher T T U O T

11510 HAFL Hammond's Flycatcher O U U U T O

11515 HDFL Hammond's/Dusky Flycatcher ? ? ?

11520 GRFL Gray Flycatcher M M M M

11530 DUFL Dusky Flycatcher B B B U T B

11555 PSFL Pacific-slope Flycatcher T O U U O T

11595 UEFL Unidentified Empidonax Flycatcher ? ? ? ? ?

11600 BLPH Black Phoebe T T T O B

11620 SAPH Say's Phoebe T

11740 ATFL Ash-throated Flycatcher O T

12020 WEKI Western Kingbird T T T

12085 UNFL Unidentified Flycatcher ? ? ? ? ?

12710 CAVI Cassin's Vireo T O B B U U

12740 HUVI Hutton's Vireo T O O

12760 WAVI Warbling Vireo U U B B B B

12790 REVI Red-eyed Vireo M M

12920 STJA Steller's Jay B B B B U B



––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


WH

WO

GF

EM

CR

FL

HO

DG

BIM

E

TA

ME

−−−−−− −−−−−− −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−−

13110 WESJ Western Scrub-Jay T T O

13150 CLNU Clark's Nutcracker T T T

13190 AMCR American Crow M M

13300 CORA Common Raven U U U B U O

13410 TRES Tree Swallow T T T T

13440 VGSW Violet-green Swallow T T O T

13490 NRWS Northern Rough-winged Swallow T O

13540 BARS Barn Swallow O

13555 UNSW Unidentified Swallow ?

13580 MOCH Mountain Chickadee B B B U U B

13600 CBCH Chestnut-backed Chickadee T T T O T

13640 OATI Oak Titmouse O

13680 BUSH Bushtit T O U T

13690 RBNU Red-breasted Nuthatch B B B B O B

13700 WBNU White-breasted Nuthatch T O O O O O

13710 PYNU Pygmy Nuthatch T

13730 BRCR Brown Creeper B B B B U B

14040 BEWR Bewick's Wren T T T O

14070 HOWR House Wren A A A A U A

14110 WIWR Winter Wren T T O O O T

14205 UNWR Unidentified Wren ? ? ?

14210 AMDI American Dipper O

14240 GCKI Golden-crowned Kinglet B B B B T U

14250 RCKI Ruby-crowned Kinglet O T

14570 WEBL Western Bluebird T O U

14590 TOSO Townsend's Solitaire T O O O T

14810 SWTH Swainson's Thrush T T O

14820 HETH Hermit Thrush B O B U T T

15000 AMRO American Robin B B B B B B

15110 WREN Wrentit O

15370 EUST European Starling O O

15550 CEDW Cedar Waxwing M M

15660 OCWA Orange-crowned Warbler A A A A A A

15670 NAWA Nashville Warbler A A A B U A

15750 YWAR Yellow Warbler O T O U B T

15800 AUWA Audubon's Warbler B B B B O B

15800 YRWA Yellow-rumped Warbler T

15810 BTYW Black-throated Gray Warbler T T T O O T

15840 TOWA Townsend's Warbler M M M M M

15850 HEWA Hermit Warbler U B B B T U

16040 AMRE American Redstart M



––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


WH

WO

GF

EM

CR

FL

HO

DG

BIM

E

TA

ME

−−−−−− −−−−−− −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−−

16090 NOWA Northern Waterthrush M

16140 MGWA MacGillivray's Warbler T B B B U B

16150 COYE Common Yellowthroat M

16280 HOWA Hooded Warbler M

16290 WIWA Wilson's Warbler T O O U T B

16460 YBCH Yellow-breasted Chat T T

16495 UNWA Unidentified Warbler ? ? ?

16840 WETA Western Tanager O B B B U B

17790 GTTO Green-tailed Towhee O T T T

17810 SPTO Spotted Towhee T T O U

17850 CALT California Towhee T

18020 CHSP Chipping Sparrow U T U U U B

18110 SAGS Sage Sparrow T

18130 SAVS Savannah Sparrow M

18140 GRSP Grasshopper Sparrow M

18220 FOSP Fox Sparrow T O T T T O

18230 SOSP Song Sparrow O O U B B O

18240 LISP Lincoln's Sparrow B B B B O B

18290 MWCS Mountain White-crowned Sparrow T T

18320 ORJU Oregon Junco B B B B U B

18335 UNSP Unidentified Sparrow ? ? ? ? ?

18600 RBGR Rose-breasted Grosbeak M

18610 BHGR Black-headed Grosbeak O O U B B O

18660 LAZB Lazuli Bunting T T U O B T

18670 INBU Indigo Bunting M M

18730 RWBL Red-winged Blackbird T T T B O O

18810 WEME Western Meadowlark O

18820 YHBL Yellow-headed Blackbird M

18860 BRBL Brewer's Blackbird U O O B B

18960 BHCO Brown-headed Cowbird O T O U U

19105 BUOR Bullock's Oriole T T U T

19330 PIGR Pine Grosbeak U T T

19350 PUFI Purple Finch O O U U U O

19360 CAFI Cassin's Finch U O O O O O

19370 HOFI House Finch T T T

19375 UCFI Unidentified Carpodacus Finch ? ? ?

19380 RECR Red Crossbill O T T T O

19430 PISI Pine Siskin B B U U O U

19490 LEGO Lesser Goldfinch T O T O B T

19500 LAGO Lawrence's Goldfinch T T T O T

19510 AMGO American Goldfinch M M M



––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


WH

WO

GF

EM

CR

FL

HO

DG

BIM

E

TA

ME

−−−−−− −−−−−− −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−− −−−−

19580 EVGR Evening Grosbeak O T T T O T

19920 HOSP House Sparrow T

20085 UNBI Unidentified Bird ? ? ? ? ?

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

the 2009 annual report of the monitoring avian ... · the 2009 annual report of the monitoring...

Documents